alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Stanley Strauch, Defendant.

County Court, Yates County,

March 6, 1959.

*Stanley Strauch,*defendant in person, and *Joseph A. McKinley*for defendant.

*Lyman Smith, District Attorney,*for plaintiff.

Maurice W. McCann, J.

The defendant-petitioner was convicted in this court of the crime of grand larceny, second degree, upon his plea of guilty thereto and was on June 12, 1930 sentenced to Elmira Eeformatory according to the rules of that institution. He now seeks to have his conviction set aside on the ground that he was not advised of his right to counsel, was not represented by counsel, nor was he advised of his right to a trial by jury. The defendant has been granted a hearing and counsel was assigned to aid him. Upon the hearing he testified to the fact that he was not informed of his right to have counsel or to have a trial by jury, testified that he was not represented by counsel nor did he know that he was entitled to be so represented. He testified that he was at that time 19 years of age and that he pleaded guilty because the Sheriff (whose name he could not recall) told him that if he would plead guilty he would get probation. Upon cross-examination by the District Attorney he said that he could not remember the names of either the Sheriff or the Judge before whom he appeared, that he could only remember *“*by the records ”. He further testified that he was sentenced upon the day that he pleaded guilty, whereas the clerk’s records show that the sentencing actually took place some six days later, on June 12, 1930.

The People called as a witness the then Court Clerk who testified that he did not have any present recollection of the defendant; the clerk did, however, testify positively that the then Judge *Always*informed the defendants of their rights. I do not feel that this defendant has convincingly proven Ms *311case here. He admitted that his recollection was solely by the record, as he phrased it.

I am, however, faced with the *Per Curiam*opinion in the case of the *People*v. *Brillian*(3 A D 2d 318, 319 [4th Dept.]) wherein the court said:

> *“*Petitioner’s testimony, coupled with a showing of the absence of any court records indicating that he was advised upon his arraignment of his right to counsel or asked if he desired counsel, we believe, constitutes sufficient substantial evidence to call upon the People to go forward with their proof.

> *“*The failure of the People to call either the District Attorney or the court reporter, both of whom were available, is significant. This failure, coupled with the testimony of the sentencing Judge, we believe, does not overcome appellant’s claim.”

In the case before me both the District Attorney and the Judge are dead, only the Court Clerk was available and he had no present recollection of this defendant’s appearance in court on June 6,1930. Were I to now deny the petition of this defendant it would but be to invite a reversal on an appeal.

The petition is granted. Submit order.
#### Theodore CAFFERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD CO., Inc., Defendant-Respondent.

No. 122, Docket 27838.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 31, 1963.

Decided Nov. 21, 1963.

*712Fred R. Scharf, Buffalo, N. Y., for appellant. James C. Heaney, Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel.

Vaughan, Brown, Kelly, Turner & Symons, Buffalo, N. Y., for appellee. John E. Leach, Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel.

Before SWAN, CLARK and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal jurisdiction is based on diversity, plaintiff being a citizen of New York and defendant being incorporated in the State of Delaware. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) provides:

> “(c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title, a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.”

This section was considered in Egan et al. v. American Airlines, 2 Cir., 324 F.2d 565. Regardless of the test to be applied to determine New York Central’s principal place of business under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), it would seem to be New York State. See 1 Moore's Federal Practice, 1962 Supp. 641-44, Note 34. We think we may take judicial notice of such well-known facts without sending the case back for findings on this issue by the District Court. Although the parties did not question federal jurisdiction, this is a matter we must consider *sua sponte.*Accordingly the case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the court below.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply12722Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Michael LILLY (not verified)PermalinkOctober 10, 2023 - 4:34pmI thank you for the history of these two building, also showing another portion of our capital that is there today.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT ACEE MASCHANG, Petitioner

v. TAX CLAIM BUREAU OF PIKE COUNTY, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 777 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 25th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
EXHIBIT 21
 SUBSIDIARIES OF DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.
  Percent of OutstandingJurisdiction of
    
    Voting Securities OwnedIncorporation or
    
    as ofName of Subsidiary
    
    Organization
    

January 1,
2011Agroindustrial Pinas del Bosque S.A.
    
    Costa Rica
    
    100%Bananapuerto Puerto Bananero S.A.
    
    Ecuador
    
    100%Bud Antle, Inc.
    
    California
    
    100%Coastal Berry Company, LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    100%Dole Chile S.A.
    
    Chile
    
    100%Dole Comercializacion, S.A.
    
    Spain
    
    100%Dole Dried Fruit and Nut Company, a
California general partnership
    
    California
    
    100%Dole Foods of Canada Ltd.
    
    Canada
    
    100%Dole Fresh Fruit Company
    
    Nevada
    
    100%Dole Fresh Fruit Europe OHG
    
    Germany
    
    100%Dole Fresh Fruit International, Limited
    
    Bermuda
    
    100%Dole Italia s.p.a.
    
    Italy
    
    100%Dole Japan, Ltd.
    
    Japan
    
    100%Dole Korea Limited
    
    Korea
    
    100%Dole Packaged Foods Europe
    
    France
    
    100%Dole Packaged Foods, LLC
    
    California
    
    100%Dole Philippines, Inc.
    
    Philippines
    
    100%Dole South Africa (Pty), Ltd.
    
    South Africa
    
    100%Dole Thailand Limited
    
    Thailand
    
    64%Dole U.K. Limited
    
    United Kingdom
    
    100%Lindero Headquarters Company, Inc.
    
    California
    
    100%Paul Kempowski GmbH & Co. KG
    
    Germany
    
    100%Saba Fresh Cuts AB
    
    Sweden
    
    100%Saba Frukt & Gront AB, Helsingborg
    
    Sweden
    
    100%Shanghai Dole Food Company, Ltd.
    
    China
    
    100%Solvest, Ltd.
    
    Bermuda
    
    100%Standard Fruit Company (Bermuda) Ltd.
    
    Bermuda
    
    100%Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica, S.A.
    
    Costa Rica
    
    100%Standard Fruit De Honduras, S.A.
    
    Honduras
    
    100%Union de Bananeros Ecuatorianos, S.A.
    
    Ecuador
    
    100%Ventura Trading Limited
    
    Bermuda
    
    100%Dole Lanka (Private) Limited
    
    Sri Lanka
    
    100%Dole Australia Pty Ltd.
    
    Australia
    
    100%Copdeban S.A.C.
    
    Peru
    
    100%
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00251-CV

IN THE MATTER OF M.B., A JUVENILE

From the 474th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023-19-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

L.M., M.B.’s mother, filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging a judgment 

adjudicating that M.B., a juvenile, engaged in delinquent behavior that resulted in a

disposition and order of probation, as well as an order that L.M. pay $5 per month for 

probation fees. By letter dated September 11, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified L.M. 

that the appeal is subject to dismissal because the original filing fee has not been paid. 

See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 56.01(b) (“The requirements governing an appeal [under the 

Juvenile Justice Code] are as in civil cases generally. When an appeal is sought by filing 

a notice of appeal, security for costs of appeal, or an affidavit of inability to pay the costs 

of appeal, and the filing is made in a timely fashion after the date the disposition order is 
M.B. v. State Page 2

signed, the appeal must include the juvenile court adjudication and all rulings 

contributing to that adjudication.”). The September 11, 2023 letter warned L.M. that the 

Court would dismiss the appeal unless, within twenty-one days from the date of the 

letter, she paid the filing fee or obtained indigent status for the purpose of this appeal. 

Twenty-one days have passed, and L.M. has not paid the filing fee or notified this Court 

that she has been determined to be indigent. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

STEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

(Chief Justice Gray dissents.)

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 26, 2023

[CV06]
.-_- .._- ^., -r-e --a- ”

She second questionwmfrontlng us is whether or not
u ncmbcr OR the Texas Loard of iiedicc\2 ExarAncrsholds or exercises 8 *civil offioc of @501lJnIent."

Al'tiClC

4602 Of thC h?~fScd civil 2tStutCsOf 3026pmvides that mtho fund maliacid from the aforesaid fees shallbe applied **first W**  **the** puy5Cnt of nCCewary espenaos of the Board of Exmincrs; any renrinin::fund.e ah8~1be appliedby t&order of the hoard (io

aqx~satlngmenb~rsof theboardin proportion M their labors."the Constitution, 8eotlfm ad of ArtIda 1%. for Districts areated to eoneerve, control and utilI?2 fo benaficiirl **Sl?l ’** **VioC** the **StCS%a** aPd **flood** raters of thC **rivers** and strems of tile State,
or such **powers** OS ray be wntmplated and %Iplied by tho purposatz of this provisionof the Constitutloo,anf$ as may be wnfarmd by Genmal Law, and in the ~r~lslons of t&Is Aof) and shall have (mdberewgnised to exercise all the rl&ts and powers of an lndspendant e;o-ental aji33ncy, ntmlalpallty, body polifia and wrporate t.0formulate any and pll plpps doesed essential to the operatlcm of the DlsWiaf Md for St8 ad&n.lstmt&on in the oontrol, storing,preservation andtlls
### rfrvraojUpwtr3H8tH&,~lhWOQdIltLlWO~' xlmatos3prrroLa 8uabawmilQtity. ala powerat wxauaxovoranah8telmaad11aoa wamoMveratali?m~~u. subybe-aytbe3tatoesNrrsr,odblootQ fhepuwlslmmofthe~UtnUon~fbC)Aat8of~ -dew ._i'

. _:

. . :, :

efMreetamofwmaw2a8MverQon8arYa 

### uenarb.

uzuitnlla~tiQpglLtRafoffide,~~lu ahrrracPferto~$ha0athl6~8feMBte@@mntyOer-~ mlMloaeMand~loxoautebslwlinthe~~eflYIs Thousuna (*QQQ.QQ) Ddllamb -a# pryaIm fo.theM6- tri&, the,~Qpcridzrapdglta?nbpddbff8n Dlatlyle~.

th8 8tasea;tQncry

or whhh lienthE

@ha1 lJ0ao- _,c)terrmiMlcr.

by qm stat0 Boapa at rater ialgineare lhicrbbonds oftcr being rowrdcd in the officialbond sc~rds of the wunty'in rhiuh the District maintains 1t6 

### ofTiceshallbe depositad with a 

### &posltmy seleotcdti approrecl ror the d,~oslt of tic funds of t&c 

### DidAct. Allvacanciesoc- ~ursln::

in the board Of Dhwtire shallbe filled by a dcslgnatlor,

of the Gfoto Bonrd of Unter En- &w2rs suhjoct to approval of the 

### Governor. Soyen (7)mea&em &all constitutea quorum to transactbuelnees. Nu more than twc (2)OS said **Diroctiro** utrall

be 8ppoinfed who reside in 

### the 5nmewunty at the tineof their~+4n~ent. The direct&% shall etch be entitl-& to caoeiye 2,._



# .oeap
November 4, 2003

24471

#### State v. Conklin

Affirmed
December 3, 1997

20061

#### State v. Kaopua

Affirmed
# C_2016202EN.01019401.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/194 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/194

---

Article 346

(ex Article 296 TEC)

(ex Article 296 TEC)

1.   The provisions of the Treaties shall not preclude the application of the following rules:

| (a) | no Member State shall be obliged to supply information the disclosure of which it considers contrary to the essential interests of its security; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

no Member State shall be obliged to supply information the disclosure of which it considers contrary to the essential interests of its security;

| (b) | any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material; such measures shall not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the internal market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material; such measures shall not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the internal market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes.

2.   The Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, make changes to the list, which it drew up on 15 April 1958, of the products to which the provisions of paragraph 1(b) apply.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6944
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-00-86-H, CA-01-156-5-H) Submitted: March 18, 2003 Decided: April 18, 2003 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James Edward Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1034, 1039 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            May-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 Feb-29-2000
<CASH>                                         50,203
<SECURITIES>                                   19,704
<RECEIVABLES>                                  79,223
<ALLOWANCES>                                   13,628
<INVENTORY>                                     9,148
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              146,554
<PP&E>                                        494,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                138,754
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,068,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         115,884
<BONDS>                                     1,539,850
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          944
<OTHER-SE>                                   (587,889)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,068,789
<SALES>                                       368,423
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              368,423
<CGS>                                          71,955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 257,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            110,347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   578
<INCOME-TAX>                                    2,186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             9,485
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    9,485
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.10




</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION OF TERRA NITROGEN COMPANY, L.P. AS
OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE
MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          10,501
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,955
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     21,337
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,849
<PP&E>                                         289,376
<DEPRECIATION>                               (138,068)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 226,717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,840
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     186,811
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   226,717
<SALES>                                        155,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               155,395
<CGS>                                          132,454
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,454
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,870
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,156
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,156
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,156
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.87


</TABLE>
24103

#### Doe Children, In re

Affirmed
Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Aviation Rulemaking Washington, D.C.

Subject: Petition for Technical Amendment to SFAR 106

To Whom It May Concern:

We, Inova Labs, Inc., of 3500 Comsouth DR , Suit e 100, Austin, Texas, 78744 are seeking a

Techn ical Amendment to SFAR 106. Specifically, our product “LifeChoice”, which has previously received FAA approval and is listed in SFAR 106, is being renamed “LifeChoice

Activox”. Because of the renaming we need to have “LifeChoice Activox” added to SFAR

106. Obviously “LifeChoice” must remain on the SFAR 106 list to accommodate product already in the field.

The renaming is being done to differentiate battery run time improvements in revision B of “LifeChoice.” These improvements provide significant advantage s to the patient in that many domestic flights will now be abl e to be made without the need to carry an external backup battery.

The changes in revision B are essentially pump efficiency improvements and cosmetic changes to the case resulting in slightly different dimensions. (Old dimensions: 9.5” height x 7.5” width x 3.125” depth; New dimensions: 7.875” height x 9.05” width x 4.38” depth).

To avoid any chance of confusion regarding supporting documents for this petition it is appropriate to discuss the “LifeChoice” history. “LifeChoice” was originally produced by International Biophysics Corporation (IBC). The supplied FDA 510(k) approval letter reflects this fact. IBC also submitted the original petition to add “LifeChoice” to SFAR 106 (amended January 6, 2010

– 75 FR 739). Attached document “IBC Letter.pdf” attests to the transfer of rights to Inova Labs when the product rights were purchased. A subsequent
amendment to S FAR 106 resulted in the original listing being changed from “International Biophysic s Corporation’s LifeChoice” to “Inova Labs LifeChoice”.The provided DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration letter also

reflects the original submission by International Biophysics Corporation. There are no new materials being added t o the revision B model and the total Li

- ion content (internal and external batteries) is the same.

Best regards

,

David Kollen VP, Quality & Regulatory Affairs Inova Labs, Inc.

Email: dave.kollen@inovalabs.com Phone: (512) 617

- 1696